Wake up NZ, whatever side of the debate you fall on it is our political indifference and lack of actual protest in almost any form other than a petition or two (and no this forum does not count). When will we stand up to the Govt of the day and demand simple things.How about binding referendum's (for example) so when the people "speak" they are listened to (no vote no voice) and their request is made so, majority rules. Govt's much prefer people to fight each other instead of them and this is a minor issue facing NZ at the moment but they are happy it is attracting so much attention and soft media, trust me.

Thank you Nigel Latta, at last someone has something sensible to say on this subject. All we seem to hear are the views of the Family First lot and about their moronically worded referendum question. #127 has hit the nail on the head and we should be wary of the anti science , anti evidence stance taken by FF.

New Zealand you have surely lost the plot. All of the assaults described in the news article would have been covered by the old s59 law. While you argue the subtle points of what is violence and what is not, your very clever children are running the zoo. They sense their parents do not have the ultimate power needed to teach them so they grow up without a sense of limit in their minds. As adults they suffer from a lack of ability to discipline themselves, they under achieve and they get angry with their poor results. This leads them to commit acts of unacceptable social behaviour, pushing the boundaries sub-consciously attempting to find some certitude for themselves, certitude they were not given as children. As we see in the papers every day, this leads to abuse of others, crime and even death by misadventure. Kiwis, when will you begin loving your children enough to teach them about life, its limits and their limitations. Your lack of guts is the true abuse of your kids.

Lindsay Clarke NSW.

ben #126

You posted that Helen Clark did not have "the skills and knowledge to pass a law on child discipline" because she had no children. That's it. That's all you said.

I can only infer from that comment that you think having children would give a person "the skills and knowledge to pass a law on child discipline". I simply pointed out the flaw in that logic.

And it is flawed logic. Because it would also mean that John Key's government couldn't, for example, pass a law increasing the sentences for murder because John Key has never murdered anyone or been murdered himself.

Your flawed logic would hamstring any government. I’m not sure if you really think you rebutted me but if you did, I have to confess that I completely missed your point again. (Your withering rebuttal on climate change is similarly lame but let’s leave that for the appropriate thread.)

Chris #86 correctly pointed out that we are a representative democracy. You seem to have a problem with that. I don’t. I like it. I particularly like the fact that stupid referendums can be ignored.

Dan B: people didn't vote because the question was meaningless dribble.

If the recent referendum had asked, " should adults be alowed to beat children", the outcome would have been quite different and equally meaningless.

Not only was the question leading and emotive, it was also ambiguous.

For example I was in favour of the law being changed ( well actually I would have preferred to see all references to children removed from the legislation and had one assault law for everyone.) yet I could easily vote no to the question asked in the referendum "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" because a smack isn't good parental correction.

Smacks do work, but there are 100 different methods that work even better and none of them involve hitting children. Good parental correction is taking the time and the effort to learn how to parent without resorting to the ultimate failure of lashing out.

The only way referenda can have any meaning is if the questions are set by a neutral party in as impartial a language as possible.

A proper question would have involved a background paragraph with the exact wording of the legislation, a neutral plain language interpretation of its effect and a simple question asking whether that legislation should be repealed.

poopboy #124 Nice try at twisting the numbers. Do we decide who forms a government at an election by who voted or by who didnt vote? 87% means most who bothered to vote are against this law. Just remember the anti smackers had their chance to vote too. So in most ways this is a fair representation. Whether you are for it or against it the people spoke and the govt should have listened , that is called democracy. Interestingly the real cases of child abuse - death - severe injury etc have not stopped and in fact seem to be getting worse since this law was passed.

Good to read parents are changing their behaviour because of this law. With any luck in a generation or so we'll be rid of the child abusers like family violence first.

I've successfully raised 2 children without resorting to hitting them. I'd no more hit my kids than I'd hit my wife. It's embarrassing as hell to be associated by nationality with these child abusers.

To anyone from overseas reading this, not all kiwis think beating children is good parenting.

RE: Dan B

I imagine the reason a lot of people didn't vote is because there isn't an option for those who don't think smacking should be a crime, yet think the law is effective.

Why would I vote to say smacking should be allowed if I know it's going to be used as political ammunition against a good law that wont punish inconsequential smacking?

It's interesting to note the difference in credibility of the organisations that support the "Vote No" and "Vote Yes" websites.....

Dan B #128 - 87% of voters did not want the law gone, they said that a smack as part of good parenting should not be a criminal act, which Mr Latta confirmed from his review is actually already occurring with the law as it stands. Did you read the question before voting?

rocketman #103 Hi Rocketman, I never saw your comments initially, sorry to appear to be avoiding you. :)

"Comparing the right of the police to protect themselves and the public by using reasonable force to overcome the force used against them is completely different to giving your kid the bash and then claiming it was reasonable as a form of punishment! Yikes!!! "

Clearly your suffering from the same thing Rex has! you have failed to grasp my analogy. The police have the complete backing of law to use reasonable force even when they aren't be threating so I don't know what you are going on about. Or have you never been to a party as a teenager and the police start shoving kids out of houses unprovoked?

also clearly you are a proponent of the "if I don't have a good effort arguement I'll just bring up extremities that no one in there right mind on either sides of the debate would agree with and cry "fundamentalists"!

its like banging my head against a wall.